All those great ideas, campaigns and projects that are nice-to-haves get the old "We'll call you" place in the marketing mix.
The question begging is obviously ...
As a marketing manager of a Brand what would you do?
Having read the results of your Brands latest "Overnight AMPS for TV" any vigilant marketer may well be shocked at the results of his overpriced ATL commercials. What Overnights are saying worldwide is the same!
With the advent of PVR's and a more discerning viewing public, advertising is fast becoming electronic wallpaper - and expensive wallpaper at that.
Outside of winning Advertising Awards, "what exactly is my ATL campaign achieving ?"our Marketer asks.
Traditional wisdom says:
In fact our Marketing director starts to see ye old 360 as a whole new cake to be divvied up quite differently.
The ATL/BTL balance has turned and continues to turn and purging the odd 30 seconder could well liberate some much needed resources for true Brand engagement - the stuff real Brand relationship building is made of - especially during challenging economic times.
Reasearch abounds - People simply don't trust advertising anymore - But most tell us that they buy because of their Experience of Brands or because someone 'like me' told them about it AND 'I TRIED IT'
I never met anyone who ever bought a car from having seen it in an ad and I dont know anyone who didnt DRIVE the Brand first -!
As John Keats said........
NOTHING IS REAL UNTIL ITS EXPERIENCED
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
3 comments:
Great points you make, shiny. Who were the world cup sponsors, btw?
I understand what you're saying about moving the budget from ATL to brand engagement, but surely sponsorship is part of the latter? So why can't I remember who the world cup sponsors are?
Sponsorship without Brand Experience is ATL under another name.
If I were Heineken, Peugeot,
Société Générale, GMF, Électricité de France, Visa,SNCF, Vediorbis, Capgemini, Orange, Toshiba or Emirates, I would have to question my ROI! What BANG exactly did I get for my buck?
South Africa are among the most passionate Rugby watching nation on the planet and I have yet to meet anyone who knew more than one sponsor (It was usually Heineken)
The trouble is that most Brand Managers just 'love' to see their name in lights. Whether it contributes to the bottom line is another matter entirely.
Look at Castle Lager for example. It continues to be South Africa's most loved Brand because they sponsor all the major Sports BUT nobody drinks the stuff anymore (sorry except for ex-pats in London Perth and Toronto) So whats the point?
I was recently at a breakfast to listen to a debate about the state of marketing in South Africa, and there were some very pertinent and to the point comments made by the speakers (marketing directors from respected companies in SA). They were saying that marketers allow communications to hijack marketing, and that marketers breathe ads for ad agencies. They were not saying that ads don't work or that there is no place for them. They were saying that the rationale for making the ad is driven by the wrong reasoning, by both the marketer and the advertising agency. Well, because of this constructive criticism of marketing (not advertising) it did not take long for the debate to become an "us vs. them" session, as advertising agencies were feeling like they had to defend themselves. Why? Are they trying to protect something?
I also agree with the panel (at the debate) that marketers are too short term driven and don't give enough attention to ROO (return on objectives), ROI (return on investment) or ROE (return on equity, not ego). As a result they are driven more and more by what the ad agencies are feeding them and not by what their business plan requires of them.
Post a Comment